The Instigator
Arri
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
isaacthemaniac
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Is it better to believe in God rather than in a biased system called religion??

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
isaacthemaniac
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 283 times Debate No: 86981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Arri

Pro

Hi all first of all this is my first debate here so i apologize if i have some errors and hope to further improve my skills for debate =).

This is purely my opinion mixed with some historical events concerning different religions. I don't intend to criticize/judge any religion.

Pro: Argues that it is better to neglect the system called religion and to be aware of a God whose thoughts,actions,name,image,and purpose for the creation of life, they can't and shouldn't even fathom.

Religion: is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Con: Argues that it is better to believe in a religion(but should not be biased to any specific religion and should focus on religion as described above )
and should point out the important reasons of having one as opposed to believing only in a God, where there are no exact writings or descriptions about God.

-This debate is open to any people who have a religion or believes in God

I agree that people should not be bound to a vague system with many diversities because It has been observed that one of the first things that are taught to kids is religion, it is a good thing if they are taught properly without any bias to other religions, while on the contrary if they are taught by biased religious zealots that view their God as the one true god and condemn the people who disagrees with their beliefs and people who worship other gods as blasphemous sinners. Which results to discrimination against all other religions and beliefs contrary to theirs.

One good example of extreme discrimination was the First Crusade that attempted to capture the Holy Lands, after their capture of Jerusalem from the Muslims, they massacred many defenseless non-Christians. The massacre even took place in the temple of Solomon which is described as follows "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared" .
https://en.wikipedia.org...(1099)

But when the Muslims led by Saladin reached Jerusalem and even offered the crusaders to leave the city, the crusaders refused and they lost. After Saladin conquered the city he did not order a massacre but instead let the crusaders leave if they can pay and offered to pay for those who can't afford.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(1187)

My point is due to the diversity of religion and their strong faith to their beliefs without any respect for other religions discrimination is made and arguments about their beliefs become unavoidable. It can start with only some minor conflict between two religions and these arguments may evolve into bigger feuds where people with the same religion view other people with different beliefs not as who they are but according to what their religion is, and finally turns into the possible worst case scenario which is using religion as a means to start a war where thousands are killed and use the name of their God to justify that it is righteous.

I look forward to a good debate.
(Sorry if my grammar is bad lol)
isaacthemaniac

Con

Does something become true because it is on Wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone) or something true because Wikipedia says so? Both issues the answer is no.
My colleague's definition of religion is flawed, firstly let us define religion. What is religion? By using a process of elimination, I intend to define religion as it ought to be and not necessarily what man has made it.
God exists and he chooses to create man and send him to earth, now since God gives man the gift of free will, God can not be visible by sight but leaves signs that would enable man's will to recognize God. God decides that he will communicate with man periodically and how does he to this? Well, he could talk to each person individually but in that case all people will automatically believe as they have no free will,and some could happen to talk to him more than others who obviously would feel rejected... so God decides to send messengers and to make these messengers human beings, and because man is capable of learning and choice, the message of these messengers becomes the basis of a way of life. This way of life from the onset is what is religion, religion is the language through which God communicates with man,just as a court room is one way in which justice communicates with man. The attempt to differentiate between God and religion is simply a flawed methodology that is simply intended to reject the rules set forth in religion,it is a materialistic way of creating a relationship with God. However, if God gave man free will, should not God at least offer man an opinion as to what God thinks man should do? And man can exercise between what God recommends and what man chooses. This is why religions carry sacred texts, like the Torah for Jews, the Bible for Christians, the Quran. And most religions have a sacred text. I contend that true religion is one and the rest are simply human distortions,if man was really interested in finding it,whatever is common in all religious texts would be the basis for any sound action,and what is unique to particular religions would be subject to strict analysis. By that analogy,true religion is one and the rest are simply diversions from that message. Another point is that man of all things is a true professional at rationalizing and blaming all others but himself, two men can share the same religion,one is extremely good and another is extremely evil,instead of saying Mr.x is bad,they say this religion is bad. And in fact religion is false,but the truth is man simply wants to follow his own rules and desires and use his free will without taking into account what God by language of religion asks of him.
Why do electronics come with a manual? Obviously to help the user, as such religion is our manual in this life and it simply should state our purpose ,our moral code, our future and all important things we need in this journey of life. Where shall we find that? In the writings of Socrates? Or in the legends passed down, obviously not,it would have to be religion, as man on his own is destined to disaster.history provides numerous examples of how man has caused a lot of calamity and sadly used religion as a tool to his own benefit.just like physics needs a text book, the text book for life Is by virtue of religion. If a human being as a baby is brought up among wild beasts,he shall teach many things to himself through reasoning and experience, and would naturally feel a sense of servitude to God,but without knowledge a human being will never learn morality or what God wants of him,he needs religion for this,and if man could figure out what God wants from man on his own,it would imply that man is as intelligent and wise as God which obviously can not be possible.
Whatever happened in the times of the Crusades until now can not be blamed on religion rather on man, since to this day,there is no justification for the crusades in the Bible but the Pope said it was okay.shouldn't we instead ban this papal office?look at the actions of Saladin, I contend that it was religion that made him restrained and God by extension showed the crusaders their mistakes.
So let us differentiate between religion and conflict of man. World war 1 and 2 occurred, was religion the cause? What about the massacres in countries like Rwanda,was religion the cause? Was religion what drove Hitler's madness? Or Alexander's brutal ambition or Napoleon's conquests? With or without religion power is an incentive for man to kill and be killed to retain it, It is unfair to blame religion for man's blood thirst,even if you take away religion, it will be race as evident especially in America or Economy as seen with the war mongering Soviet union.
So let us blame man the true actor not religion.
Debate Round No. 1
Arri

Pro

Arri forfeited this round.
isaacthemaniac

Con

Pro forfeited
Debate Round No. 2
Arri

Pro

Arri forfeited this round.
isaacthemaniac

Con

opponent forfeited
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Isn't the belief of God religion? You can't believe in God and not be religious... at least if we're talking about God from the Bible. You can believe in a deity existing via a logical argument, but who's to say this deity is the same God?
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
I'll be following this debate.
Posted by Vapeo 1 year ago
Vapeo
You set up a system in which only your opinion can be effectively argued. Almost noone who is truly religious because of God puts religion over God. But i agree with your premise, its just hard to argue.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ArriisaacthemaniacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
ArriisaacthemaniacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture